Wednesday, 5 March 2025

Greenland: What’s going on and what may happen

Greetings! I’m Jorge Emilio Nunez, and with so much information (and misinformation) about this case, I’ve decided to dive into the situation surrounding Greenland as of March 5, 2025, drawing on the ideas I’ve explored in my three books—Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Relations: A Distributive Justice Issue (2017), Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (2020), and Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (2023). Let’s unpack what’s happening with Greenland—an autonomous territory within Denmark—and consider possible outcomes, weaving in my frameworks subtly while keeping it fresh and conversational.

Greenland’s in the spotlight right now, and it’s no surprise why. With a population of just 56,000, mostly Inuit, this vast island holds strategic weight—think rare minerals (39 of the U.S.’s 50 critical ones), potential oil (17.5 billion barrels estimated), and its Arctic perch near the GIUK gap, vital for NATO. Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, he’s reignited his push to “control” Greenland, calling it essential for U.S. “economic security” and refusing to rule out military or economic pressure on Denmark. Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede and Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen have fired back—“Greenland is for Greenlanders”—while an April 2025 election looms, with independence a hot topic. Russia’s warned against U.S. moves, citing Arctic stability, and China’s eyeing minerals too. It’s a geopolitical stew.

My 2017 lens sees this as a justice tangle—who gets Greenland’s future? Denmark’s held sway since the 18th century, but the 2009 Self-Government Act gave Greenlanders self-determination rights, a nod to their colonial past. Trump’s gambit—tariffs or force—ignores that, treating Greenland like a prize, not a people. Greenlanders want independence (64% in a 2016 poll), but fear losing Denmark’s $600 million annual grant (25% of GDP). The U.S. has Pituffik Space Base there since WWII, yet locals resist being pawns—Egede’s “we’re not Danish, not American” echoes my fairness focus. Russia and China lurk, ready to exploit any rift, but no one’s asking: what’s just for Greenlanders?

Zoom to 2020, and I’d say this mess has layers—legal, tangible, emotional. Legally, Greenland’s autonomy grows (it handles resources, courts), but Denmark keeps defense and foreign policy. Trump’s threats clash with international law—self-determination isn’t negotiable—yet Denmark’s grip isn’t ironclad either; a 2023 draft constitution awaits a referendum. On the ground, Greenland’s harsh climate and small economy (fishing, tourism) limit mining’s promise—2021’s oil ban reflects green priorities. Values churn too—Inuit identity versus Danish ties, U.S. security versus local control. Leaders’ prestige fuels it: Trump’s deal-making bravado, Egede’s independence push, Frederiksen’s balancing act. It’s not one dispute; it’s a web.

By 2023, I was thinking about plurality—states, peoples, global stakes. Greenland’s not just Denmark’s backyard; it’s an Arctic player with the U.S., Russia, China, and NATO circling. Domestically, Greenlanders debate: independence risks poverty (78% opposed if living standards drop, per 2017). Regionally, Canada and Iceland watch—Hans Island’s 2022 split shows compromise works. Globally, the U.S.-China mineral race and Russia’s Arctic buildup (new bases, 2024) frame Greenland as a chess piece. My “The Border We Share” series (launched March 3, 2025, online) ties this to fictional stakes—Oz’s borders, Narnia’s wars—showing how mindset and prestige trap us. Here, Trump’s swagger, Putin’s warnings, and Egede’s resolve rigidify lines.

What could happen? First, status quo holds: Denmark resists Trump, Greenland delays independence, U.S. keeps Pituffik, and tensions simmer—peaceful but stagnant, as old tools (UN, NATO) falter. Second, U.S. coercion wins: economic pressure (tariffs on Denmark) or a deal (free association) pulls Greenland into America’s orbit—costly, risking backlash (Russia gains, NATO splits), and clashing with my justice call. Third, Greenland goes independent: a referendum passes, Denmark agrees, but economic woes loom—China might step in (past overtures), shifting Arctic power. Fourth, a plural fix—my vision with regard to territorial disputes and sovereignty conflicts: Denmark, Greenland, and the U.S. share roles (co-sovereignty), locals govern, resources split, NATO stays. This needs a mindset shift—prestige bends, not breaks.

The outcome hinges on will. Trump’s push could fracture alliances (Europe’s wary—Scholz’s “incomprehension”), Russia might test NATO’s east, and Greenlanders could leap if mining pays off. My work says we’re stuck unless we rethink—fairness for all (2017), all angles seen (2020), all voices linked (2023). Greenland’s a test: cling to old power, or build anew? What’s your take on where this lands?